Recent international peer-reviewed research has cast doubt on the effectiveness of upstander programmes in schools, which encourage students to intervene when they witness bullying. Despite widespread adoption in Australia and elsewhere, studies suggest such interventions may not reduce bullying and could even be counterproductive.
Australian Education Minister Jason Clare recently endorsed the upstander approach, describing upstanders as “people who are prepared to stand up, not walk past the problem”. However, a 2023 Dutch study of over 5,000 students found that victims who were defended by peers showed no improvement in self-esteem, depression or bullying severity compared to non-defended victims. Similar findings emerged from a 2025 Chinese study of more than 1,000 students and a 2025 Finnish study involving over 6,000 students.
The upstander model was popularised in the late 1990s by Finnish psychologist Christina Salmivalli, who argued that bullying occurs in groups and interventions should target the whole group. Many Australian anti-bullying programmes incorporate bystander training, but most have not been scientifically evaluated for their impact on bullying or victim outcomes.
Meta-analyses have further questioned the approach. A 2011 study found programmes with peer strategies were less effective than those without. A 2021 meta-analysis distinguished between informal peer strategies, which were associated with greater effectiveness, and actively encouraging bystander intervention, which was linked to reduced effectiveness in reducing victimisation. A 2022 meta-analysis found that non-punitive methods involving peer problem-solving were also associated with reduced programme effectiveness.
While bystander intervention may sometimes help, its success likely depends on factors such as the intervener's status and relationship to those involved. The findings suggest that schools should reconsider heavy reliance on upstander programmes and focus on other evidence-based strategies.
